among internet information, 2% overall but 5% of those say most of it was some social networking sites and most of the rest said this was a full throated, undeniable repudiation of this administration's policies and failed economic stewardship of this president. it was an across-the-board electoral catastrophe. hitting every key voter group, losing all roman catholics, 52- of the key swing independent

groups. the evangelical vote turning out in the largest numbers we have republican that we have ever seen. and don't know where your data showed on women, but the cnn poll which was 52-48, which is basically a tie, losing in by 13 points. >> white women, 57 republican. we had a 57-40. >> so you can see that this is really across the board. we are viewing this as a to- election process at a minimum. the house is going to be in tax cutting, pro-family, fiscally cutting hands. we are excited about john boehner, soon to be speaker

john major and his leadership team. there is work yet to be done. we are not going to rest until barack obama has been replaced by a pro-family, pro-life, conservative president and harry reid has been replaced by a pro-family conservative leader in the senate. we will be redoubling our efforts as we go into 2012. as you can imagine, we are very pleased with what happened yesterday. >> you mentioned the [unintelligible] rate. are you targeting the health care of zero [unintelligible]

>> it was really across the board. it was a bad vote on health care. it was the fact that he was one of those who along with bart stupak did not vote to require the house conferees -- that they instruct their a hell conferees if there was a conference committee between the senate bill and the house bill. this was before nancy pelosi rammed through the senate version. there's a critical vote on whether or not the house conferees would be constructed -- instructed not to exceed to the senate language. and to hold firm on the boards to pac language. bart stupak voted wrong on just about everything. if you claim to be a pro-life democrat but you vote consistently with nancy pelosi and steny hoyer and against your

pro-life convictions, you pay a price at the ballot box. >> [unintelligible] >> we were in a total of 62 house races and won 47 of them. i don't know that we are releasing that list, but we will be happy b.g.e. if you go to our web sites, in previous releases we announced -- we were doing radio in 24 of those districts, so you can see where we work. just to explain mechanically our project work, we built files of social conservatives, both evangelical and catholic, a total of 7.7 million households. depending on the region of the country, the district or the state, they got multiple pieces of mail, multiple phone calls, e-mail's, text messages, and in some cases a knock on the door. we were trying to ensure that those people turned out in the largest numbers possible.

we think that outcome was successful. >> your poll numbers show tea party and evangelical christians, namely white. i am curious about reaching out to the african-american and his banks to identify themselves as pro-life christians in service. how are you going to reach out to them? >> we made that a major priority this year. i symbolic national tax forced to make sure we build bridges to both african-american churches, where we have had great success in the past on

issues like marriage and like an education reform as well as the hispanic community. i think the exit polling is clear that we have a long way to go. i have not had a chance to digest all of it, but i did look at the cnn exit poll that showed that the hispanic vote broke 66-33 democrat, which is only 3% better for republicans than they did two years ago. >> among white voters, it is 61-36. and hispanics, 40-57. >> we were out there knocking on doors and ringing doorbells and making phone calls and

distributing voter guides in churches. we were involved in the south carolina race with tim scott. he spoke at our conference in september. we went all land in florida because of marco rubio. we were all in in mexico because of susanna martinez. we recognize we have a long way to go, but every incremental gain we make among this voter group is a huge step forward. i guess i would prefer to believe glen's data at than the cnn data. we know we can do better among that group. george w. bush got 44% of all hispanics. he got 56% of the hispanic vote in florida. the african-american vote is

going to be tougher, as long as barack obama is in the white house, but we are not going to give up. we are going to keep trying. anybody else? >> we talked about crossover between christian conservatives and the tea party. does the data suggest that it was a victory for the tea party or christian conservatives? >> i think it is a victory for both. the social conservative, pro- family movement is in the middle stages of a fascinating evolution. i would not claim to have all answers to where that is headed until i get chance to fully

digest this data and really look at what we see happening. from a 30,000 foot level, i see the agenda broadening. we have always thought that was going to happen. when i was at the christian coalition, we helped pass welfare reform. we passed the deepest, broadest tax cut directed at mary families with children in the post world war two period. now with the obama spending spree and this out of control, big government program in washington d.c., and with the tea party movement, you are going to find more and more people of faith working on a broader range of issues, remaining true to their pro-

life, pro marriage, and pro religious freedom convictions, but also recognizing that a big, out of control government that is bankrupting future generations is not just a fiscal issue, it is a moral issue. the second thing that i see, and this is something that has enormous, long-term political implications for the country, you are looking at a constituency that has moved from the wilderness years of roughly 1920-1979, when the moral majority was founded, to significant political effectiveness and influence. i think increasing maturation, sophistication, and technological proficiency. if this constituency can do through these groups, if they can become a conservative analogue to what the labor unions and civil rights organizations have done, this has huge long-term implications for our politics. this constituency is bigger than either of those constituencies. 20 years from now, you are wrong to have a social conservative equivalent of an nra are the afl-cio.

they will be turning out and registering tens of millions of voters. what does that mean long term? it probably means you will have more democrats who say they have to learn how to appeal to those voters. it is going to be hard for them to win statewide races and elect members of congress, as glenn pointed out, in the heartland of the country or in the south. >> if i could just follow up on that. there are a number of prominent evangelicals who warned against creeping into the tea party ideology in terms of things like -- different ideology.

i am not concerned about that. i have now been doing this long enough that i have seen this movie before. in 1992, which was my first presidential cycle of the christian coalition, we did a survey of evangelicals. it was maybe a week after the election. it was a real wake-up call for us. resurveyed evangelical christians. they were about 20% of the vote at that time. their number one issue was jobs and the economy. when the economy is in trouble and people are losing their jobs, and people cannot find

jobs and they are losing their homes, -- it is not an either- or. it is both. they are concerned about values and our concern about the economic issues. it is not like you go through a neighborhood when you are door knocking, and you knock on the door of a voter who does not frequently attend church, and you say here is a tax and spending fire. you go into doors down and knock on the door of somebody who frequently attends church and professes to be a born- again evangelical and you give them a pro-life flyer. they are for more individual freedom. to add this aggregate these voters' concern shows a lack of understanding of how comprehensive the world view is.

they are believers in the lord jesus christ. that fate covers every area of their lives, cultural, moral, physical, business. they don't this aggregate that. their world view is the prism through which they view every issue. >> what do you think now that the wave of conservative christian have been voted in? what is the most important thing for them to accomplish over the next two years before the voters analyze what happened and who they will vote for in the presidential election? >> i don't think it is just a handful of things. i don't want the list to be exhaustive, but i would say stop the spending. demonstrate their fiscally conservative bona fides by extending that tax cuts. no. 2, repeal health care. it is not as a fiscal issue, it is a moral issue. the extent to which it will lead to unrestraint taxpayer funding of abortion.

thirdly, on a range of issues, the pro-family and pro-life, and unapologetically so. glenn has one piece of data. i don't know if you can throw it up or not. it showed it was about a 20- point advantage for republican candidates to be pro-life, that pro-life voters were an asset to the party, not a liability. can you pull that up? i may have the number wrong. it was possibly this one. >> you can see that among voters for whom the abortion issue

made a difference at all, it did not matter to them, they voted 57-40 republican. among right-to-life voters, 77- 30 -- this is a huge asset to the party. my advice to the republican party, hopefully not totally unsolicited, would be stop apologizing for being pro-life and pro-family. this is helping you at the ballot box, not hurting you. you should speak proudly of you are pro-life and pro-family convictions. glenn and i will stay around if you need to talk to us any further.

thank you all for coming. he is going to post this on his website. we will also posted at ffcoalition.com. ours is already up, and glenn's will go up as soon as he changes the color scheme. make sure we change the color scheme. it is critical. >> in a cnn exit polls, margo rubio got 55% of the white boat. there's no exit polls done in new mexico. >> what about nevada? >> my sense is that -- the truth is, i don't know yet. i was so busy last not putting all this together that i have not had a chance to drill down. we made a significant effort in

nevada. 72,000 doors knocked in the las vegas area by our volunteers and paid workers. two weeks of saturation on christian radio. 150,000 voter guides. we made a significant effort there. my sense is that this is anecdotal. two things happen. number one, i think we got our puzzle on the ground. the air war largely canceled itself out. nevada is not an expensive media state. this is not liked pennsylvania or florida or california. both parties, both candidates, every third party in the world that could rub to nickels together was on television.

infomercial's were being bumped to air these attack ads. there is one serving in the last week that showed that 72% of all the view -- all the voters are tuning out ads in many people had stopped watching television. i think not surprisingly, given the preparations for those last 96 hours, and especially the whole early baroque time, i think she got out and hustled on the ground. the second thing that happened, voters made a calculus that unless they were sure the republicans were going to carry the senate, and by the time it got down to the end, it looked like it would not go republican, why would you throw out a majority leader from your state? if it looked like the democrats were going to retain a majority anyway, you would think it makes sense for those late breaking voters to decide if

it's going to be a democrat majority anyway, i would wrote it -- rather have harry reid and chuck schumer or dick durbin. i have to look at the data. we were getting over the weekend from our people. as i said, our activists knocked on 72,000 doors in the last week. they told us we are just about it out here. we are getting lapped. >> is it just as easy to say it is a continuation last not of what we saw in 2009 with scott brown? is there any differences at all that leap out in the data? >> one of the key parts was, as ralph talked about, there was a

high republican base turnout. that was not as big a factor in massachusetts and new jersey as it was in virginia. you had high republican enthusiasm. the democrats did do a good job of turnout in a number of places. they got whacked in florida and virginia. one of the keys was independents. it was basically a two-one ratio. >> when it comes to questions like this, i just say whatever glen bolger says. having been involved in every governor's race in more virginia since 1981, and our organization being deeply involved in 2009, be used virginia as a dry run for what

we want to do in 2010. it was kind of frightening to me, looking at this data early this morning and seeing how much it look like virginia and new jersey one year ago, to the point that even some of the numbers were identical. in virginia, we saw the self identified evangelical vote go from 27 to 34. nationally we saw it go from 25 to 32. we saw the self identified conservative vote in virginia go from 33-41. we saw the conservative vote from 2006 to 2010 nationally go from 30 threeto 41. it is amazing the extent to which groups like ours and our candidates used virginia, new jersey, and massachusetts to try some things, some themes, some kinds of campaigns, some messaging, and we thought it worked there, let's just do it everywhere. the second thing that is astonishing is that you could

have a political team this cable, one of the best political themes i have ever seen in my career up until this point, have all three of those things happen and just ignore them all. you would think that if you lost virginia by 18 points, if you lost a senate seat in massachusetts for the first time in 44 years, and you lost in new jersey by the biggest margin since the early 1970's, that you would say, we may want to pay attention to this and adjust accordingly, but they didn't, and the result was yesterday. thank you all very much for coming. feel free to get in touch with

me, glenn, or greg taylor afterwards if we can answer any questions. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> this weekend, we will show >> president obama calls for compromise between democrats in -- and republicans including the extension of bush era tax cuts for middle-class americans. then come work rubio florida gives the republican weekly address and taunts about his party's principles and a legislative priorities for the new congress. this week, americans across the

country cast their votes and made their voices heard. and your message was clear. you're rightly frustrated with the pace of our economic recovery. so am i. you're fed up with partisan politics and want results. i do too. so i congratulate all of this week's winners republicans, democrats, and independents. but now, the campaign season is over. and it's time to focus on our shared responsibilities to work together and deliver those results: speeding up our economic recovery, creating jobs, and strengthening the middle class so that the american dream feels like it's back within reach. that's why i've asked to sit down soon with leaders of both parties so that we can have an extended discussion about what we can do together to move this country forward. and over the next few weeks, we're going to have a chance to work together in the brief upcoming session of congress. here's why this lame duck session is so important. early in the last decade, president bush and congress enacted a series of tax cuts that were designed to expire at the end of this year. what that means is, if congress

doesn't act by new year's eve, middle-class families will see their taxes go up starting on new year's day. but the last thing we should do is raise taxes on middle-class families. for the past decade, they saw their costs rise, their incomes fall, and too many jobs go overseas. they're the ones bearing the brunt of the recession. they're the ones having trouble making ends meet. they are the ones who need relief right now. so something's got to be done. and i believe there's room for us to compromise and get it done together. let's start where we agree. all of us want certainty for middle-class americans. none of us want them to wake up on january 1st with a higher tax bill. that's why i believe we should permanently extend the bush tax cuts for all families making less than $250,000 a year. that's 98 percent of the american people. we also agree on the need to start cutting spending and bringing down our deficit. that's going to require

everyone to make some tough choices. in fact, if congress were to implement my proposal to freeze non-security discretionary spending for three years, it would bring this spending down to its lowest level as share of the economy in 50 years. but at a time when we are going to ask folks across the board to make such difficult sacrifices, i don't see how we can afford to borrow an additional $700 billion from other countries to make all the bush tax cuts permanent, even for the wealthiest 2 percent of americans. we'd be digging ourselves into an even deeper fiscal hole and passing the burden on to our children. i recognize that both parties are going to have to work together and compromise to get something done here. but i want to make my priorities clear from the start. one: middle class families need permanent tax relief. and two: i believe we can't afford to borrow and spend another $700 billion on permanent tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

there are new public servants in washington, but we still face the same challenges. and you made it clear that it's time for results. this a great opportunity to show everyone that we got the message and that we're willing, in this post-election season, to come together and do what's best for the country we all love. thanks. . . . hi, i'm marco rubio. with election day now behind us, it's an honor to talk to you about the opportunity before us -- an opportunity to put america back on track. for too long, washington has taken our country in the wrong direction. bigger government, reckless spending, and run away debt. and though i'm a proud republican, here's the truth, both parties have been to blame. this election the american people said enough is enough. that message was loud and clear. we republicans would be mistaken if we misread these results as simply an embrace of the republican party. this election is a second

chance. a second chance for republicans to be what we said we were going to be. america is the single greatest nation on earth, a place without equal in the history of all mankind. a place built on free enterprise, where the employee can become the employer. where small businesses are started every day in a spare bedroom and where someone like me, the son of a bartender and a maid, can become a united states senator. i know about the unique exceptionalism of our country. not because i read about it in a book, i've seen it through my own eyes. you see, i was raised in a community of exiles, by people who lost their country, people who once had dreams like we do today, but had to come to a foreign shore to find them. for some their dreams were answered here in america, but many others found a new dream. to leave their children with the kinds of opportunities they themselves never had. and that is what we must do as a nation. to fulfill our sacred obligation to leave the next generation of americans a better america than the one we inherited. and that is what this election was about.

in the past two years, republicans listened to the american people and what they said is that it was time for a course correction. the past two years provided a frightening glimpse at what could become of our great nation if we continue down the current path. wasteful spending, a growing debt and a government reaching ever further into our lives, even into our health care decisions. it is nothing short of a path to ruin, a path that threatens to diminish us as a nation and a people. one that makes america not exceptional, not unique, but more like the rest of the world. as republicans, here is what our commitment should be to you. our focus must not be simply winning elections. it must be to ensure the next generation inherits a strong, free and prosperous america. we will govern as public servants who understand that re- election is simply a byproduct of good public service and good ideas. and most importantly, we will stand up and offer an alternative to the policies

coming out of washington for the past two years. the challenges are too great, too generational in scope for us to be merely opponents of bad policies. instead, we will put forward bold ideas and have the courage to fight for them. this means preventing a massive tax increase scheduled to hit every american taxpayer at the end of the year. it means repealing and replacing the disastrous health care bill. it means simplifying our tax code, and tackling a debt that is pushing us to the brink of our own greece-like day of reckoning. for many of us coming to washington for the first time and others returning to serve, it's a long way from home. a long way from the people whose eyes we looked into at town halls, at diners or roundtables, and promised that this time it would be different. that if you elected republicans to office again, we would not squander the chance you gave us, and we must not. because nothing less than the identity of our country and what kind of future we will leave our children is at stake.

that is our commitment and from you we ask this. hold us accountable to the ideas and principles we campaigned on. this is our second chance to get this right. to make the right decisions and the tough calls and to leave our children what they deserve -- the freest and most exceptional society in all of human history. thank you for listening, god bless you and your family, and may god continue to bless the united states of america. >> this weekend, june kohlberg, best-selling author and editor at large of the national review online. join our 3 our conversation with your calls, e-mail's in tweets.

>> the national oil spill commission will hold a two day public hearing on preliminary findings regarding a well blowout. it will deal with the causes of the explosion. that is at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span to. >> on friday, a georgetown university hosted a discussion on the midterm election results and what is next for democrats, republicans and the tea party. speakers included the chief of staff, when dennis the senate's and dan rather. this is one hour 45 minutes.

>> good afternoon and welcome to georgetown university. in the dean of the school of foreign service. that was the center for the german and european studies that is coasting this important event. i am really delighted to and excited to be here today because something happened on tuesday. i am not sure what it is. i have to say that i have been in politics myself and i am a little puzzled by all the messages that may be out there. we know that the message is fairly clear. the president said it himself. what are the messages that the boaters one of us to receive on tuesday? what difference is this going to make a going forward for american politics going forward. what does it say about where the american policy is? this is a question i always ask for it how important is this

tension between those that are comfortable with a larger government and those of a smaller government? this goes back to the beginning of the republic. it is something that i find a peculiar to the american political debate. these are the questions that are in my mind and i am sure they are in your mind. we have the experts at this table that have, hopefully, some of the answers. i will turn the event over to professor john christopher view of who has been dealing with this. he has kindly put this together. thank you so much, john. it is over to you. >> thank you for the opportunity. it is nice to be a professor even though i have just done it for eight months.

i take that with great honor and great gratitude. i want to shout out to our leader in the german center. it is professor jeff anderson. he is not here with us today. he is here in mind and spirit. thanks to our gracious friends at c-span. you can watch the entire show from home where run today. who has survived the sonometer it passed the some money. -- the tsunami. we face the cold heart community -- reality. this is what we referred to. where do we go from here? where do we go from here as a country? despite the endless spend that

you have heard, and you will not -- we will get into that in a minute. the cold hard reality of the results began to sink in. we are left with the question of where do we go from here? where do we go from here as a country? but the fact is that despite the endless been that you have heard and you will not hear any of that today. we have no place in this fight. what do the voters want? what message were they saying? what message were the voters saying to the various operations, parties and people a

a and elected officials. the republicans would tell you that it is a repudiation of the policies of barack obama and the democrats. some democrats would tell you that it is no such thing, but a failure to deliver a message. what the tea party might say is that their success, in a large sense, is because there is a large group of disaffected americans who were turned off by government and desperate to hear from anyone that has a common-sense approach to fix the problems of america from within. these are individuals that can address that and will speak amongst ourselves and we will then for this out to you and get you involved in the last portion of this event. i would like to introduce adam bolten, who is a colleague of mine.

he is the sky news political editor and host of a a program. adam bolten is here during the first hundred days of barack obama is administration. -- barack obama's a administration. he has written a book called come together he has interviewed everyone from nelson mandela to george bush and barack obama and woody allen and jane fonda in between. he goes back a while. i will say one thing about adam boulton. when you are in an interview with adam, you will say that that is the last question that he will ask because he will not go any further with this interview. adam will pull out another

question and i guarantee you that he will make news with the question you never would have thought that he could do. harold ickes has a heart of gold but is a political icon. he has a history, despite what you heard, he is probably the most tender man i know. he is a good friend. he has advised presidents and hillary clinton and was a senior adviser to the president as deputy chief of staff during bill clinton's administration. he has a history of human rights and advocacy that goes back to the civil-rights days and we are very honored to have herald with us today. harold ickes. what can i say, dennis this image is here. it is very good for his constituents -- dennis to cinch is here. he was the youngest elected mayor in his day.

that was a little while ago. this is his ninth term as a member of the house of representatives. he is a member of the oversight and government reform and education look and labor committee. we are grateful that he could put that train back on the rail so we could -- so he could get here. if anybody could do that, he can. thank you for being with us. henry olson is the director of the american enterprise institute. he is going to tell us what happens turned it and why they do what they do. he is an expert on voting

behavior. a couple of days after, we need a bit of a reality check and find out what happened from a man of his stature. we are happy to have him here. there are two lines. all of you students that the not know these lines, i wanted to write them down because they are part of our history and the lexicon of our history and they come from an american master. i remember both of them. one is, i will to a little bit of my dan rather imitation. it was in 1968 when walter cronkite said at the convention in chicago, and a equally handsome dan rather with those old headphones on i believe it said to the police. i will not call them goons. it was a raucous time and i believe you said, "unless you

are going to arrest me, take your hands off me. and i sort of there? >> dead accurate. >> thank you, sir. >> another line, and i want you students to look this up. "no sir, mr. president, are you? i think he was asking if he was running for something. dan rather is now the anchor and managing editor of dan rather report. he is one of the most authoritative voices. he served as anchor and managing editor of cbs from 1981 until 2005. that is the longest running

tenure of any broadcast journalist. like i said, we are honored to have a true american master with us today. and it is all true. >> lynn sweet is -- i do not want to tell you what she is. she is the chicago sun times bureau chief and columnist for politicsdaily.com. linh a sweet is probably the most powerful woman in that room. when i am with her, and there is no way that i will get a question if lynn's wait -- if lynn sweet is sitting next to me. she is appreciated. she is the washington bureau chief for the "chicago sun- times." she has a wonderful blogging and she is a regular guest. we are honored to have her. dr. james a saudi -- dr. james zogby has a book that is

extremely relevant at this time. his book is right here. he would love to sign them for you. we can also get an online if you go to his website which is aai.com which is currently posted in several countries. his out reach is massive and very important to all of us when we look at the politics of this could country and these last couple of years. what i thought i would do was start the conversation on a few topics. i would like our distinguished guests to join in. oh, one more guest. who did i get?

>> of john zogby. >> i just did john zogby. for anyone who did not hear this, we have an extra plug. do you have a deal? did i get everyone? adam keeps me straight. i hope i did not do anything wrong, but for give me if i did in advance. i want to throw this out. on tuesday, the republicans won 61 house seats and came very close to controlling the senate. this is the third change election in a row. 2006, 2008, 2010. i would like to open this up to our folks here and hear from you exactly what message the

voters were sending on tuesday night. who would like to go first? go ahead. >> with the brains on this panel, i have to get in early or may not be able to say anything at all. >> there is no ego like an anchor man's ego. believe me. it is clear that the electorate was saying to both parties, if you want to include the tea party movement, to everybody, economically, we are in trouble. when you look around the globe, iraq and afghanistan, we thank the globe is in trouble and we

expect you to do what you can to make things better. that is one message. i think it is economic growth and jobs. i think that is basically what this election was about president obama had the case that he promised a lot and maybe he overpromise, but in our view, you have under delivered. i think there is a message for the republican party, although the republicans would probably disagree with this and i am often wrong about such things, but i don't care what your party is, we expect better than we expected to get better in a hurry. if it does not, come 2012, there will be another turnover. you used the phrase of a tsunami. from a historical perspective, i would disagree.

not a tsunami, but maybe a hurricane two or hurricane four. unless all of you address that problem and address it directly and address it boldly and address it with some audacity, we will be turning people out from washington in the foreseeable future. >> i think that dan has done a terrific job of summarizing what i would have said. my sense is that there are people on the fringes that will talk about the size of government. i think that people are not as concerned about the size of government, whether large or small, but what they want is an effective government and what

they have seen is not their view. having said that, against the backdrop of what has gone on, it is hard to have effective government instantaneously in the sense of creating the jobs with the economic engine that is going to be required to pull this country back to where it was. my sense is that there was a huge sweep of independent voters. one reckoning was a 28 point swing of independent voters. democrats had an 8 percent margin and republicans had a 18% margin. it is that group of voters that are saying that we are hurting. we are petrified tree we are frightened. we do not think that things are going well for us. we are tired of the bickering back in washington.

washington has a very short leash. if they lose, the republicans will try to figure out how to drive the rhetoric of their hard-line tea party people with trying to get something done because they are now in charge of at least one house and you can claim that they are in charge of both houses because with a 60 vote requirement, they can block whatever they want to block. it is effective government, and that is the message. >> jim? >> this was yet another of the post-katrina elections. the loss of confidence in the government to solve problems. katrina, in that context, is more significant than 9/11. 9/11 saw the country come together and katrina had us fall apart. look at this. i did town meetings all over the country in 2008. i experienced things that i have never seen before. this is the first generation of americans that no longer believes that their children --

the standard of living will not be had that they have themselves. there is this collapse of the

dream. it is a shock to the system. it is the collapse of financial institutions. it is the collapse of the housing market. the overall collapse of the economy that has resulted in more people out of work or fearing that they will be out of work. it has caused a tremendous strain through there is a loss of confidence in the federal government to solve that and that has taken a toll. i have a ph.d. in religion and a post-doctoral in religion dealing with the religion under stress for it what happens when a culture suffers tremendous

stress. i think that what happened in 2008 is just the reverse of what just happened that now. in some ways, 2008 surprised me. i do not recall a situation where an organism under the kind of stress that we were, to boris that were unwinnable, the economic collapse, the loss of confidence in government, people who voted for hope and it was unexpected and irrational. similarly, this was similarly irrational. out of the same kind of fear and the same kind of anxiety that made them believe that barack obama could bring a different order -- a different process to work in washington. i use this one last example. after 9/11, i got death threats in my office from people saying that i must die. we have police protection. it was so frightening that some people in my office building, not my staff, but other offices came to provide us with lunches and one day a woman came and knocked on the door and we have security at the door and she said that she made these brownies for us. i completely lost it when she did that. what i said was that her act was gratuitous. it was undeserved. i did not deserve her kindness in that way, nor did not deserve the threats. but the system was in shock. the people responded this way and then the people responded that way. it is the same way in the electorate. they responded with hope and then they responded with fear and anger. they looked for a target to direct their hope to and then

they'd look for a target to direct their anchor. i think that republicans have got a short leash on life. this could just as quickly turn the other way. >> would you like to add to that? >> i am in agreement with what dan and john and harold said. this is where the incoming party is as unpopular as the outgoing party. in 1994, when republicans took congress for the first time in four years, voters had a positive opinion of the republican party. in 2006, when the democrats swept into power, boaters had a positive opinion of the democratic party. we should not interpret this as an endorsement of them. there is definitely an idea of working together for the common

good. i would estimate that about one- third of the electorate are very numerous, but in the middle, this is that swing vote that affected government. it is very difficult to look at the election without saying, as far as the current results of repudiation of the policies has happened. since i study voting statistics, i will throw out a few members here. try and there with me with this. the group that i was looking at was the like working class. that is defined very broadly to me. if you take a look at the non- whites, they stuck with the democratic party with the exception of african-americans, who turned out in record high numbers for the president did they dropped back to their historic voting to about 10% of the electorate. other minorities turned out in

the same percentage as they did for obama. whites without a college degree moved massively for republicans at a 10% margin and voted for mccain by an 18% margin. that is a record. it is not just southern whites that have been voting at the top of the ticket for republicans for years, but they have been voting them to congress. 17% democrats lost reelection in the south and that was once the dominant base of the party. there are more republicans in the house for new york and new england and then there are white democrats representing the south. it is also the north. throughout northern working- class areas that voted for dukakis and clinton and kerrey, many of these district return republicans to congress for the

first time in decades. that is like jim oberstar's district. like the illinois 17 which is a working-class district. these are historic democratic voters have voted republican for the first time. when you look at the polls, is not hard to figure out why. president obama's approval rating among white working class men -- they have not released the data from the exit poll, but it was below 30% and

white working-class women were above 30%. george bush's. it is hard to see this in anything other than a repudiation. we have to look at the economic system. it is structured to accelerate the wealth of the country upwards. there is a great deal of fear out there.

people have worked their whole lives to have retirement security and pensions. they had either lost them or are on the verge of losing them. they do not know why or how this is coming about. the republican party is charged with the responsibility for being able to create the jobs. there is a reason why there are 50 million americans unemployed. the private sector has chosen to consolidate wealth by shedding jobs and improving its stock performance by late trading jobs out of this country. there is tremendous downward pressure on wages. people expected the democrats to get them back to work. frankly, we failed to do that.

i sat on the risers and looked at 2 million people during the inauguration. we missed it. we would not have had to take the minimalist approach with health-care or to get the economy moving again. we ended up with a bad about it. we missed loan modifications that could have felt the mainstream. we ended up with a health care system that was reform only. it's still these people at the mercy of the insurance companies. we end up with energy policies that pay homage to oil and coal without recognizing that the

environment is in jeopardy and that our children are in jeopardy. the economic system is set up so that no matter whether democrats or republicans are in charge, we have trade laws and will continue to take jobs at this country. we have a monetary policy where the fed is spending $600 billion. businesses cannot get money for capital. plus the war, one of which was based on lies. this is not a partisan statement. for the life of me i do not understand why barack obama did not hold george bush accountable for taking us into iraq, keeping us there, and these trillions of dollars being sucked out of our economy for those wars, and the tax policies of the previous in

ministration exhilarated the wealth to the top. how could you not have people in revolt? 6 million people lost their homes and another 6 million are in jeopardy of losing their homes. 50 million people will still not have adequate health care. another 50 million or -- are under insured. while some might be doing well, that points to the fact that until we look at structural reforms that the government can invest and rebuild the emperor structure, with the federal reserve is brought back into the control of the government, not an entity of its own, and with the banking system itself is fairly investigated as to its impact on districting wealth to the top. but we look at those kinds of things, we can call democrats or republicans for years coming. it will not matter.

by 2016, this country could be ready for an independent movement that relates to people 's practical aspirations. >> lynn sweet, your thoughts on that? [applause] we have an equal time deal, so everyone has to get applause. thank you very much. [laughter] last week, your readers -- are these the concerns that your readers have? what is your feeling about what exactly was the issue here? >> several of the palestine said it, it is jobs and the economy. the obama white house did not move fast enough to solve the problems.

i just want to take a quick look forward. where do we go from here? the message that was delivered on tuesday did take the next step. the white house knows it. the obama white house now knows it will have to deal with speaker john boehner, investigations from the republican controlled congress, they will have to restructure going into a defensive mode where they had been in an offensive mode bracing for this new arrangement. now, while it might be harder to govern, it may be easier politically for obama after he gets to these few weeks of the shellacking. why do i say that? i say that because the republicans now have to be held accountable. s and as we had the new year,, the obama team will start

dealing with the 2012 reelection. a few weeks after that, there will start to open the headquarters in chicago. part of that will be in washington. you have not only the tea party critics, the regular republican party establishment critics, the aggressive gop leadership, but you have the republican presidential candidates traveling around the company -- traveling around the country and opening up new fronts all over the country. you have the obama white house that will have to deal with the new political rally as well as the new members in congress. the republicans now have to share in the miserable economy. if, as the months go by, the job rates are still stuck high, it people's homes are still being foreclosed on, if mortgage modification does not go

forward, then the obama white house can use this contest to argue along a water line that they have. the republican leadership will have to show something in this era of new government. we never speaker mcconnell has already said one of his goals is to make president obama 81- termer. -- make president obama and a one-termer. there will be a few big issues where people will find a compromise, but you will have a new era of gridlock with some of offramps, th some with some issues that will allow both parties to show some gains.

at the moment, the reality of having to deal with a divided congress, no matter how they got here, is more important. the white house does another that the republican leadership will have its own internal problems as well. they know they had their own problems at the democratic base. >> the work triangulation comes into my mind. i would like to talk to that -- talk about that in a minute. how do you deal with this particular congress and how do you deal with the fact that,

hey, let's see you do something. i think that is really crucial. i would really like to hear adam bolten. he has been so much time in the united states. he is so clued in onto what is going on here. >> thank you. when you cover politics, you get into a few scrapes along the way. there is nothing worse than talking about politics in your own country than talking about politics in someone else's country. i will take this someone gently. i have outlined three questions that the rest of the world, including britain, are asking after these midterm elections. the first big question everyone is asking is is president obama finished? is he going to be a one-term

president? as you know, with the exception of george w. bush, president probably have higher popularity ratings abroad than they had at home. that is sort of the case of barack obama. everyone is experienced with reaction against the incumbents. they can be reminded of the history of what happened to clinton or what happened to reagan. the short answer is all they know president obama is not finished. he can come back. that said, i think people have been particularly impressed by the reaction of the president since the defeat or even in the buildup to the defeat of the democrats. there is talk about probably from the rest of the world, a desire of leadership.

there is a question as to whether the rueful response the president has given so far while sticking to his principles is one that in the relatively short space of time that is left is going to be particularly inspiring. i believe this applies domestically as much as for the rest of the world, he would be helped if there could be some real test. obviously people are looking for ratification of the arms reduction treaty. they clearly are interested in his involvement in the middle east. it has to be said that if you look at iraq, it seems to be going back to the bad again. or afghanistan -- and none of these look particularly heroic. it is a problem for the british

government, which is led from the right of center, as to whether they look for friends of in washington in the future. do they carry on with the white house, or do they start reminding republicans that they too are conservatives. that said, i was reporting on the rally for senate deet this weekend. -- rallied for sanity this weekend. >> they would have all been at home in the crowd. >> the second question everyone asks themselves is -- the rest of the world is obsessed by the influence of the tea party. is it a good thing? is it a bad thing? where is it leading american politics? many people are inclining to

condemn the story of the tea party. our sister station here is fox news. i spend a lot of time talking to conservatives as well. the significant moment that helped republicans if you look across the board in all of the elections was when the tea party decided to throw its lot in with the republican party and in -- and support republican candidates. there is no doubt that it energized republican base. if you recognize that there is a growing group of people who would describe themselves as independents who are bolick tile in politics, this is a

phenomenon across the democratic world, i think. but here we still have a basically bipartisan system, until 2016, that will clearly energized it. finally, the question we are all asking ourselves is about the economy. it remains the engine economy for britain and parts of europe. you do appear to be straddling the two questions at the moment. there does not need -- there does not seem to be a call for more stimulus. unlike the experiment which the coalition government in britain -- it is fairly clear, i think, that there will not be dramatic cuts in the deficit or dramatic cuts in the next two years.

that really leaves the united states, and to a certain extent the presidency, drifting. another fall which my friends in the financial sector in britain are always reminding me about, china has been the the company -- china has been the dominant economy for the past 18 years. >> dan rather, i know you have something to say about that? >> one thing i do want to point out, we should be concentrating on what it is the majority of the people in the country want and what they are worried about. we have not taken into effect what the many special interest to contribute these overwhelming amounts of money to campaigns in both parties -- i want argue at this time it the advantage was

republican -- but let's see clearly that in modern times a great deal of what our elections is about is who gives the most money to whom expecting to get what. it is all well and good for us to talk about what it is we the people want and what the electorate wants, but there is a growing group of people in the country -- and again, it cuts across party lines -- but their ability to contribute huge amounts of money -- this was a $4 billion midterm election. while some people give money altruistic week, all lot of people give that kind of money and expect to get something in return. let's be clear that we talk about this election, where do we go from here?

one of the places we go from here unless things change dramatically, which i do not expect them to do, is it you think this was a very expensive, while, and woolly election with secret money influencing the election, stand by for 2012. the last presidential election alone was a $2 billion presidential election. you can imagine what it will be like in 2012 given what we went through in 2008 and 2010. that is in the background of everything we talk about here today. so just note that's in the background of everything we talk about here today, is the tremendous sums of special interest money. some of it comes from corporations, some of it comes from organizations, but there's a lot of it around. it's increasingly difficult to really put the sunshine on it

as a disinfect nt to say where it comes from. >> i ask harold, i know you have some thoughts on this. who is getting rich out of this? there's $4 billion spent. where the heck is it going? is it all ad buys? is it the consultants that are racking it up? who actually gets this doe? >> it's the consultants get it, people get it, postage costs money. >> so it's good for the economy. >> so a lot goes into the ads. i want to come back, and i agree with dan. it is a huge and growing problem. and when i consider the united states supreme court disgraceful decision, the united states united has just opened up overruling over 100 years of federal law banning corporate contributions to federal campaigns, it's disgraceful. i think it augurs real concern about the federal cases that are going on affecting the

health care bill. the health care bill is not i think have a seprablet policy which means that if the supreme court of the united states were to find one provision in the whole health care law unconstitutional, it could -- i'm not saying it would, but it could knock down the whole law. but i want to come back to where do we go? and it's unclear to me if i can wavic wand what i would advise anybody to do. because here you have a group of tea parties who decry government but can't wait to get into government. there's no small irony on that. two, you have the two republican leaders, mr. mcconnell and mr. boehner, who have said mr. mcconnell very bluntly and mr. boehner almost as bluntly, our task is to take the president of the united states down in 2012. that's our central task.

so i don't think you can expect a lot of cooperation from them. three, they have the tea party's and boehner has a bigger problem i think than mcconnell, who are going to be screaming and yelling. you could be seeing possibly something getting through the senate, and i understand you have a dimmer view of the senate at times. but let's put that aside. you can see something getting through the senate possibly with there's ten mod ral democrats so you can see something being fash fashioned there to get through the senate. does it then get accepted by the much more radical house or really radical republican constituency and a more liberal democratic caulk suss? so when you think about the politics in the context of what needs to be done? the economy, the economy, the economy. mr. bernanke apparently has thrown up his hands and has given up on the congress and

the president and is now going to buy $600 billion worth of government bonds to try to stimulate the economy while the corporations are holding, as the congressman pointed out, trillions of dollars in their treasury. and if you look at the political landscape and if you believe as some of us believe that we need more stimulus, i couldn't agree with the congressman more, we were way to tepyid on the stimulus bill. but that's buy gones be by gones but you're going to be hard pressed to find a democrat in the congress, much less a republican, that is going to vote for additional stimulus. so what, as you look at this, you can talk about cooperation until you're blue in the face. what's the remedy? i think we are in a very havor -- very, very scary time. and if you look at what happened to japan. they were starting to come out of their freefall in the late 80s, early 90s. nay cut the deficit. so they increased the

consumption task from 3% to 5%. and those people who have studied japan think that that is the reason japan is -- it killed the republic. >> thank you. your thoughts? >> well, i'm going to stick to what i know best, which is the voting patterns. i think what we're looking at is a period where both parties' basis are going to insist on open warfare. i think they're both positioning for the big show in 2012. and i think that increasingly is something that is being rejected by people in the middle. about a third of americans, a third to 40% are partisan democrats. about a third are partisan republicans. and the people in the middle would like to see elements of both parties' platforms adopted in increasingly difficult times, understanding why they can't sit down and each sacrificing.

also, electoral, i think you are seeing not for the same reasons as congressman kucinich does, but you are seeing the way of openness to a nonparty candidate not in 2012 then certainly beyond if one or the other party doesn't understand the discontinuity between the demands of its base and the demands of the middle and seeks to curb the excesses of its base to curry favor. >> i think that the points that dan and congressman kucinich made are ones that i want to come back to. when i say this election was about fear, it was fear that was exploited in the way the campaigns were run about issues that had nothing to do with what the campaign was about. and part 51, for example,

became the subject of campaign ads in several dozen elections. can you explain that? >> the part 51, the building of the islamic center in south manhattan. a district in west virginia, unemployment 13.5%, mine disaster taking lives and fear of miners going back to work, the republican candidate challenging the democrat where do you stand on part 51? and then making a whole series of ads funded by big coal. and the very guys who the congressman in his role as committee chair of resources was putting regulations on, doing ads saying that he was a supporter of terrorism and that he was affiliated with radical islam, that he did this, that he took money from this that and the other. one might argue that issue had nothing to do with what this election was about. but hundreds of thousands of

dollars were poured into this campaign and others, renee elmers and others who are going to be joining this next congress. wasn't the issue. and it wearnt -- wasn't what big coal was interested in. but it was the wedge that they used to build fear. and it played a big role in this campaign. at tude toward muslims among democrats, 55% favorable, among republicans 12% favorable, it's not the party of george her better walker bush and james backer any more. it's the party of those who exploited fear all summer long and literally unified their base around this issue and then were able to exploit it in the election. and i'm very concerned about how this played out and waiting to see what the next fear campaign is going to be. >> that would be interesting.

do you think this will intensify? do you think they'll be more of these kinds of things? >> probably. >> is it just naturally so or is this a difficult environment that creates even more of this kind of fear? >> well, i think some of it is situational. it will depend on the environment, it will depend upon -- let's just say if the packaging aboard that plane last week had exploded, we would have a different political climate today than we do. it would change everything. and i think that the islam phobia that comes out of this, some of that is situational. i am interested just in the very short term, president obama left in a big international swing, he'll land

in germany tonight and he will go to indonesia. and one of the things i am waiting to see is if any of that strikes resurge nt about his life in indonesia. i will be interested to see how his boyhood years in indonesia are played. that will be a teg point of something. but there's always flash points in campaigns that are ugly all the time. i see no reason why there will be a difference. >> kind of an underimplicit assumption. remember, i want to bring out to the open, that it's in the interest of the unemployed to have dramatic restructuring of the economy. we can debate that as a matter of policy preferences. i might take a different view. but the polls suggest that, among at least white working

class voters, that they don't share that. that two to one believe that less government, -- that more government is more harmful to the economy than less government. and that's an abstract level. but i think the argument that you are making is that it's a distraction from what what they really care about. they're really concerned that the government that sthay see coming from washington is not in their long-term economic interest. and that could be a failure, they could be misinformed. i don't believe they are but they could be misinformed. but that's a perception issue that's real and it's something that if you're trying to interpret what's going forward and what's just happened and where we're going forward has to be taken into account. the very people who were most affected by the unemployment and the economy did not believe that the remedies that are being advanced were adequate and not because they weren't too little but because they

were too much. >> congressman, your thoughts here. >> well, we could talk about post election anlitches but it depends on what questions you ask the people. if you say too much government. look, i know about white working class people. my father was a truck driver. i grew up the oldest of seven. my parents never owned a home. and as the family expanded we kept moving. by the time i was 17 we lived in a couple different places including a couple cars. i know about the experience of america. the idea that government just doesn't work. government works. the question is who is it working for. it sure is working for wall street. it sure is working for international monetary systems. it's working for multinational companies.

it's working for arms marchents. when people look to the government and they say, well, look, where is my right to organize? i was promised that. how come we're not out of iraq? the democrats promised that when they took over in 2006. how come my wages are frozen? why is my pension in trouble? is social security going to be in trouble next? when you create that kind of uncertainty there is going to be a backlash. and the democratic party, which based on the new deal, won the affection of working class people, that white working class, frankly where i grew up, there were african americans having the same kine of economic problems in the same boat. we can talk about less government. but let's talk about less government in terms of this new congress. if we don't have any government stimulus and private sector isn't providing jobs and we're

talking about cutting taxes, looking at dedeflation. there's just no other path possible. so i know a little bit about that working class. i live in the same house today in ohio i bought in 1971. working class neighborhood. people want government to produce results. and, frankly, temporizing, minimalism. great speeches. well, to quote walter mon dale from many years ago, where is the beef? there was no delivery that was adequate enough to be able to meet the size of the challenge. and the american people had every right to expect that would happen. so again, where do we go from here? well, if we're going in the direction of tax cuts and stop stimulus and reduce the deficit at the expense of social

spending and we stay in iraq and afghanistan, god help us. >> i note, i'm going to have one more thought from adam. i'm going to ask him for his -- there is a huge movement, a coalition government in great britain, and he can testifies to that, he was there. but there's also a real interest in cutting services and spending as a solution by the coalition government. adam, just quickly, what parallels do you see and how is this country going down that particular path? and will it be beneficial? will it be a detriment? host: well, the short >> >> >> i don't see big parallels. i think we have got a right of center government in britain which is trying out a very different experiment, which is basically trying to cut the structural deficit over the

next four or five years. a lot of people are worried in exact thri same way that the representative is worried that this will simply strangle any sign of ecovery. re we are seeing welfare cuts, support for defense, support for education being cut. and even within our national health service, our socialized medicine, we're seeing a stand still in the budget there, which of course given that there is still medical inplation -- inflation, means effective cuts. and we are doing that in britain because we don't have the advantage of being a reserve currency and the argument has been made, and for the time being accepted by the electorate that wasn't the room to borrow more to finance the

further stimulus, because in an open economy like ours, the effect of that on the economy would simply be to postpone a worse reckoning. but, i would put a question back, if you'd like, to our panel is as we look at the way we go forward, let's assume that america does now have a decent recovery to a certain extent. is president obama right when he says if unemployment was half of what it is now, the democrats wouldn't have had a problem? or given the acsell ration of the political cycle, if that happens, could it actually be the republicans are given the credit for it? >> of course one of the most difficult things going forward must be dealt with that on the one hand you have election returns which indicate people say they want less government,

want the government to get out of things. that would indicate at least slightly a trend line that says it favors the republican or the right, we need to get the government out of things. and depend more on the private sector the kind of people who give this huge money to each election campaign. but when you get down to individual programs, the certain who says i want the government out of my life. you say, well, then we'll cut your medicare, wait a minute. i'm not talking about medicare. or if you say we want to raise the eligible for social security, you go to someone and you say i want to get the government out of my life. well, we'd like to raise your retirement age to 67, 68. wait a minute, i'm not talking about social security. this is what the elected officials and the rest of us must come to grips with. which way is it? do you want to go say raise

social security the retirement age, raise that up? do you want to get control of medicare? some in the republican party, some in the tea party want to get rid of medicare. but it's going to be done but it's going to be a part of a cut and thrust of the debate and the argument as you go forward. we can't have it both ways. if you don't want the government in your life, then medicare and the new health program, social security, will all be affected. i'm sure the other side will say, wait a minute, we're not talking about that. but if you want -- i don't want to be a one-note about this. we can talk about what needs to be done, what should be done, but if you want to know what is going to be done, follow the dollar. follow the money. find out who contributed what

to whom and what amounts in the last campaign, whether they be lynn or democrat, and you can just bet the rent money on it that that's the way the policy is going to go. you want to know where the policy is going? follow the money, follow the dollar. that will tell you where we are going to go, not necessarily where we should be going. >> thank you, dan. indeed sage advice. and if you think about raising the retirement level age, just look at our friends in france. take a lesson from some of the goings on. >> the retirement age has gone up. >> there you go. we've got two wonderful people here with microphones, and i'd like to spend the next 15, 20 minutes really listening to your questions. and if you will make them questions and not propaganda statements, we would prefer that. and we'll keep them short and i will ask my distinguished panel to keep your answers short, too. because i'd like everybody to

go. this man has been raising his hand since wednesday, so we want to make sure that he goes. yes, sir. tell us who you are and how you're affiliated. >> bob weaner, national columnist and jointly cover the white house with you, john. >> that's not why i called on him because he covers the white house with me. >> and good to see some friends on the panel, too. one issue that hasn't been rayed, i wanted to bring it because i was a youth voter registration director in 1971 when the youth vote was first allowed in the constitution there were 15 million more youth 18 to 29 who voted in 2008 than 2010. but as cnn reported yesterday, the congressional election margin of republicans over democrats was 5 million. is there any way to build that turnout of youth but also minorities, especially here in the college setting, very appropriate to ask this question, in an off-year

election? and if not this election, which had this kind of controversy, when? so how can that be done? >> we're going to ask each panel member to take about 30 seconds to answer that, because i'd like to get everybody's perspective. and adam, we'll start with you. >> in an off-year election, i really think we're going to struggle probably the way to get young people involved is to have at the top of the agenda an issue which they think affects them, which again in britain we've got a lot of discussion now about university college financing. that does motivate people. but in a sense that's why we're here. >> well, the way you positioned the question is presumes that -- you're coming from good governance and good civil behavior. it might not be in the best interest sometimes to want to raise or the bow the boat

depending on where you're running. what we saw in 2008 with the obama phenomenon, which was compared to a unique chapter. >> the young person saw a chance for change. you'd see the turnout start to change. so you give young people a stake, that's what we should be doing. people say how are you going to pay for it. >> do you feel a stake in it? i see a few students out here. fair question? do you feel there was a stake in this election personally for you that you got out and voted? i see a lot of thees and not a

lot of thees. i see one yes, one no. that's interesting. bear that in mind. but they're hear meaning that they're here to participate. >> but the -- look, there are so many young people right now who are stock piling debt or their parents are where by the time they leave school they will owe 80,000 and more. and so their whole lives then from the time they graduate until they're in their middle age period are going to be about retiring educational debt. we have a system that is just wrong when it comes to investing in our young people. so if you show them that you have a stake in the election because there will be education for all, everyone who is 18 or over will be out there to register and vote. at least those who want a higher education. >> do you see any similarities back in, you were a reporter in

vietnam for the field. when i as a college student was scared to death i would lose my 2 s and if i did i would have to go to vietnam. that motivated us. we voted because we knew what was at stake. it was a certain part of the anatomy i want mention here but we were really scared and we voted. there's no draft right now. your thoughts on that. >> one question, it raises a larger issue. i think that with young people, with people of any age, the question is how do we reach the percentage of people eligible to vote? i think we need to study what the experience of some other countries. for example, i'm not suggesting this but we don't even discuss it. some form of either you vote or you pay a price for it. i don't mean literally a price. for example, when you go to apply for employment, they ask you for your social security

number your birth certificate. did you vote in the elast and some proof of that. i think the subject is broader than just young people because it's been a long time ago, it isn't true that sam houston was still writing when i was young but it's been a long time ago. young people have other things to do. and we understand that. but i think the larger question is how to increase the, in the american style, there are some countries where it's mandatory to vote. there are others where there are high incentives to vote. i don't know the answer to this question. but i don't expect, frankly, that the percentage of young people, however you define that, will be significantly higher in 2012 than it was in 2008 depending on the race it could be lower. and i don't think the mid terms of 2014 will reflect much

higher percentage of young people voting this time. it's just in the nature of our particular american advance of democracy. >> the short and the long answer is no. >> i forgot the question, harold. >> to his question. no. >> no. >> i would agree with dan and harold, that we had a high turnout election this time by mid-term standards. we had about 42% of eligible who cast ballots, about 5 points higher. and for decades we've seen voter participation increase with age and the degree to which you're settled in the community. so unless you move to a compulsory system that many european. >> australia. >> i don't think you're going to see mobilization of young people in what we've seen in the past. >> the republicans nationalize this election on the president

on fear and insecurity, and to some degree it worked those who were coordinated national campaign. democrats tried in the last month to sort of put the president back out there and make it an election about supporting him to get first-time obama voters the votes, who turned out in 2008, back to the polls. but he wasn't on the ballot. and the hope wasn't there, fear was. but 2012 will be different. and i think that you will see a replay of the kind of turnouts that qued we had in 2008. >> that may be good news for certain people. the young lady down here. >> thank you. i'm a student at the center. the panel discussed a lot about how the election reflected the american desire for an effective government and how we're really looking for

do what the people are looking for. i'm wondering, in recent years not just the 2008 but just recent years there's been record numbers of phil busters and presidential vetos. how can we ensures that with the numbers that congress is facing now that there will be action taken in 2010 and that people will work across partisan lines to ensure that the very real american issues get dealt with? >> i'd like to answer that? very good question. >> i think you vote republican. if i could put it that way, that certainly in the 30 odd years i've been covering american politics it's no news that there has been a polarization, that the republican party and the democratic party are more clearly defined. and, you know, if we look

abroad, we can see that party structures are more volume tile with their forces do come into creation. one of the other things that's been going on in the 30 odd years that i've covered british politics that our sector has grown from being a couple of percentage points to really just about if you put all the liberals and the nationals together on a par with the other two main parties, now you haven't had that take part in your american, in your political system, and if bipartisanship is going to become almost a dirty word in here in congressional polls, some relationship between congress and the president, something has got to give. because it does point to fairly

parallels put in the system. >> good one. >> my name is elizabeth and i'm a student in the democracy and governance program here at georgetown. and my question has to do with the spending and the wars in afghanistan and iraq. shortly before the election, reported on a poll that said voters in this election were obviously prioritizing the economy and that the war ranked lowest if at all on their sort of list of priority issues. and i was wondering if you could commint on why they focused on the economy and how much we're spending seems divorced from how much, as congressman kucinich mentioned, we're spending in the wars. >> let's have someone beside congressman kucinich. i think we have an idea of how he stands. >> people can be concerned about a few things at once. i don't take so much stock in the poll that just puts the concerns. it doesn't mean that it's not there.

but until you have a mortgage you can't pay, a house you can't sell, a retirement you can't have, and a job whose pay may be chopped, or you're furloughed, you have to deal with that right in your face. and that is why the economic situation is so tough. and so important politically. >> a good answer for those. the gentleman right here. tell us who you are. >> i'm chris. i'm a freshman at the for foreign service. president obama said back when he was president elect said that he liked the majority to be inclusive, that the minority to be constructive. and my question is, which side of this has been more true?

i don't think it can be true without the other being true. >> thank you. >> good question. >> sum rising. >> back to barack obama's statement. >> so barack obama said the majority has to be inclusive and the minority has to be instructive. and i'm wondering, has the democrats over the last two years been as inclusive as they could have been? have the republicans been as constructive? how does that play into voters what perceived. >> i'll put that to congressman kucinich. >> the dynamic that the country

was expecting with stronger leadership from the white house was then pull the congress along, and if the republicans had a plan to basically frustrate the president, the president could go over their heads to the american people and some of the support and you would have seen a different result in the election. that didn't happen. so >> is that called a bully pull pitt? >> again, i want to go back to inaugural day, 2008 -- how many of you staw inauguration and were there? i had this chance to just sit up and right at the back rise where i could see it all and it was an amazing thing and i could feel the energy. and i was thinking, my god, we're at the moment of real transformation here. and the energy dissipated. it was squandered. and so we didn't have to -- it

didn't have to be that way. >> well, it didn't have to be that way, congressman. here's what president obama does, he has to be accountable on this. which in sports, in basketball, you don't try to sit, you try to get up and pull it off. in military terms, every even noncommissioned officer knows, exploit success. and i agree that in there was an aura about inauguration day, not just in washington, but around the country. and even many people who had not voted for barack obama felt strongly that this is a new day we can move forward with something new. and when the president got into office, having run a bold ah dashese campaign, he began to play in the public perception, at least if you were here we argued this he began to play it safe, got a reputation for playing a little soft.

an example. instead of saying to congress, i want a big stimulus, and if the republicans resisted i'm taking it to the people. in the case of health care. rather than let congress write the health care legislation, i'm going to lay out some parameters of what i want and i'm going to fight for it. now, again, justifiably or unjustifiably, he developed very quick and said -- the young man's question is what happened. what happened is that the perception got out that president obama was not willing to really stand up and fight in harry truman fashion, if you will. that he might be trying to do a bit of more bill clinton, triangulate a little bit. and again, rightly or wrongly, this helped lead to the, well, what does he stand for? what is he willing to stand up and fight? is he willing to take on directly? >> again, there's one element that i ask be added.

and that is that congress, the democratic leaders in congress were waiting to see what the white house would do. instead -- you wouldn't know it but we're a co equal branch of government. >> well. >> and you wouldn't know it because we're waiting to see what the white house would do. the white house testimony prizing, we done tetch a program. so the american people have every right to be upset that neither the executive or the legislative branch produced the results they were demanding. . >> when congress adjourned, went out around the country. the summer before, on these health care town meetings it was very clear what the agenda was. it was to disrupt. and people behaved in vandal bully like fashion and violence actually ensued in a number of instances. what was really troubling i think to those of us who wanted to see health care reform was

that there was no pushback in a real sense. so that we had a briefing at the white house toward the end of the summer about health care. and still were not sure at the end of an hour and a half discussion what the white house really wanted in that bill. and then there were those endless meetings in the senate trying to win over one vote in the republican side. didn't happen and the bill got compromised down and down and down and down. still didn't get is the vote. so i think that the democrats were inclusive to a fault. and i think that republicans were obstructionists to a fault. but republicans were able to spin their obstructionism better and democrats, until this day, i think don't know what happened to them last year. and didn't realize even after they passed health care and the bill was passed that they had the job to do to explain that bill to the american people, which frankly most people still don't understand. "new york times" did a better job of trying to explain it than congress did or that the

party did. and the result is that the guys who were playing the game won and the guys who were sitting the sideline lost. >> much wisdom in what you're saying. there's a lot of talk about the power of the presidency. one of the major powers of the presidency is the power po to persuade. that's what leadership is about. pick whatever fight you want, health care reform, stimulus bill, whatever. at some point the president is expected to and he wants to do well in future elections to lead and to take on -- this is what you say if there's no push. what president obama in at least the public perception is he doesn't really have the stomach for the cut and thrust when it comes down to it's either going to be this or that. as for congress waiting object white house, what you've

described is what's known in baseball is alfon gas stone act. the bawl falls somewhere in between -- ball falls somewhere in between. >> i remember who is on first too. >> i want to move, a couple of our distinguished folks have to get on trains and planes and automobiles. but i want to go this to this gentleman and then that gentleman there. and we'll keep the answers briefly. >> i'm a senior in the business school literally here in this building. just first before i ask my question to return to this issue as a young person in this election. i vote because er day there are men and women overseas making sure that i can vote. but my question today is i think the most intriguing thing to come out of this election is it seems like the republican party exists in name only.

and it's sort of reserved down. we have the southern, the northeastern entrepreneurials from the george bush area. my question is it seems there's no national republican figure who can come out and take the nomination for the 2012 presidency. mike pence, jim demint, they're all great in the republican party. can they come out and take a sweep in the primaries in the states that they need? additionally, what would the selection of that candidate mean, particularly talking about mike bloomberg who i think in his public comments has made it seem that he would be considering the run. >> good question. harold. >> republican party hasn't nominated who wasn't already nationally famous since 1940.

so for them to nominate somebody who can walk into a diner and get blank stairs if you mention their names is probably not going to happen. >> sara palin. >> well, sara palin would get very nonblank stairs, particularly if it was full of men. there would be four people who would fit that test. mitch -- mitt romney, huckabee, sara palin and going rich. so i think one of them wins and then the question is which ever one comes on top, the question would be how does the tea party feel about that person? i think if huckabee or palin came on top, the tea party would be very happy but the establishment wouldn't necessarily be happy. so not the elite but voters, to an establishment style bloomberg candidate. i think if romney were to win in the wrong way that many tea

party would be unhappy. we won't know for about a year. >> one quick question and then we're going to lose two of my distinguished friends here. and if the other folks would like to stay for a few more minutes, we can do that if that's all right with the powers that be. >> we will take this question, and then i will lose my two friends here and then we will continue for a few more minutes. >> thank you. >> who are you and who are you with? ? >> i'm sam stine and with the "washington post." harold, you can't pass on this question. it was announced about 30 minutes ago that speaker pelosi will be making a run as and i'm wondering if this is a good thing for the democratic party considering they just lost however many. >> it's all yours. >> i missed the name. now that she's going to what?

so your question is? well, i think she's been an extraordinarily effective leader. there are those who say that there would not be a health care bill. you can debate the merits of the health care bill but there are those who say there is not a lot of opinion in washington there would not have been a health care bill without mrs. pelosi. so i think she has been an extraordinarily effective leader. my view is that she has a real hold on the democratic calks. it's a much more liberal caucus than it will be in january than it was before the election because of the loss of the blue dogs. my view is that if she wants to continue as leader, she should continue as leader. and i don't think it will hurt the democratic party. i take issue i think with henry

on the themic that he struck that this is a vote against policy. i don't think this is vote -- really is against policy. i suspect if you ask most people what policy did they vote against, they might come back and say too much government. there's a lot of talk about the health care bill is not very popular. but according to some exit polls at least, 50% of the country want the health care bill. they don't even know -- that's 50% that doesn't know what's in the bill because the administration has not done a good job of saying what the good things are in health care. there's some bad things. the answer is yes. are they going to be corrected over time? the answer is probably yes. but there's a lot of good that came out of the health care bill that benefit a lot of people. we democrats have not done a good job of selling that. by contrast, if you were to ask

virtually anybody who voted what the republican program is, other than shrinking government and cutting expenditures in a time where even martin if he will stine, imnemt economist of bush one, thinks that there ought to be more stimulus. even when somebody like that is saying there ought to be more stimulus, i would defy anybody to articulate what the republican program is going forward. and so i do take some issue with you on whether they were voting against policy or against the fact that they are pissed off, they are frightened, and they think the government hasn't done thing. >> please keep in mind this is a jezzwit institution. >> i'm sorry. >> and only here could we let

him get away with that. and we're going to lose dab rather and dennis kucinich. [applause] >> let me just say that in a far less articulate way my opening comments were trying to make the same points as harold did. there is the way people interpret this election on top and then there was the reality underneath of a royal public really frightened, very anxious, and voting their fear and anxiousness. and i think that that was pretty much what happened. on the question -- i just also want to say speaker pelosi should stay leader pelosi. it was a great two congresses.

you cannot look at the legislative record in particular the last two years and not feel proud of what a -- the first woman speaker in history accomplished. and i think it was shameful and to some degree blatantly sexist the way she was characterized. it was wrong. and she should not pay the price for the sins of those who tried to target her in a very disgraceful way. >> i think what happened here is between the increase in debt, between the health care bill which according to the exit poll it is about 50/50. but among 48% saying they want

to appeal it. 48 saying they want to expand it. i think what happened people did not want the rapid sudden extensive movement that was being proposed. and i know many people in this audience and many people in this panel think it wasn't rapid enough. and there's a lot of americans who shared that view. i don't think the elections showed that. it's very consistent. this has happened a number of times in history, american political history that when there's a rapid expansion of federal policy in good economic times or bad, that the american middle class tends to react by voting for the republicans. >> my only response to that would be i'm amazing given the license that the republicans had to bad mouth and characterize the health care bill as big government raising your taxes, et cetera, in

contrast to what i consider not a very vigorous or effective selling by the administration and democratic leaders. i'm surprised that 50% approve. >> well, ok. >> we could take a new question. >> why don't we take a new question. >> i'd like to make one point. what is the strategy now. i'm not rally very clear on what the democratic strategy is. >> the question along those lines. yes. the first person right there. >> my question is about the tea party. whether or not they think that if miraculously the, within the

next two years we see big economic growth, is there a future for the tea party? or is it an outgrowth? >> you want to jump on that. >> there is no tea party with a capital t and a capital p. no head quarters. it is a movement. and it is a movement that gravitated and became a win-go in this election for the republican party. and it may be absorbed in it, it may not be. the republicans fused their candidates with movements in local areas, in this 2010 election. one of the things that existed in 1996 was something called ross perot and his followoers and there's no per ot movement that exists any more. it left. people went someplace else. usually you often call people

who come and go in the electorate and aren't identified with a particular party, they're called independents or swing voters. here, we had people who for all purposes seemed like independent republican voters just going up to a lot of local splinters and the tea phenomenon will, i'm banking on, will not become more structurally head quartrd any place than it is now because that's not what the people in this movement seem to want. >> yes. another question. >> yes. the gentleman right in the middle. >> my name is gaven. i'm a freshman here in the school foreign service at georgetown. and i want to touch on the subject that mr. rather addressed before he left, and that's the subject of campaign finance. just for a little bit more an elab ration.

and since a lot of figures in the democratic party and indeed president obama himself have criticized the citizens united case as really a travesty for our democracy, we've seen probably an equal amount of pushback from the right saying that, no, corporations actually do have these rights. my question is, is this really a threat to our democracy? does this really threaten our legitimatesy of our democratic system to have all of this money flooded into an election even if it's just a mid-term election cycle where less than 50% of the people actually get to vote? is this taking power actually away from the people who aren't getting out to vote anyway and giving toyota the corporations? . .

>> the rules are the rules, and i sink you will see more and more big money involved in elections because of the citizens united case. i think it does not serve a democracy well. it is a constitutional decision, so in order to overturn that, it would require a constitutional amendment. i did not than anybody is about to convene a constitutional convention to deal with this issue. they tried to put a bill approved that would require more disclosure. very rapid disclosure and full disclosure about who did what to whom. that bill did not go anywhere.

i do not mean it will go anywhere in the republican congress. i do not know what the riv answr is. >> we have one more question, so it better be very good. adam, would you like to ask a question? my question is this, the president came out the other night and did not look terribly half thappy. no matter what your politics are, we saw zero wounded man. he said he feels bad. the question was, was it the democratic party in this white house that was not able to sell good policy or was the american people -- did they not

understand the policy or did they reject the policy? is it about the message, policy, politics, and i think we probably will not get an intervi answer to this question. that is what this particular round table is about. >> i think it was about policy, although it is always completely hard to divorce the message from substance. great depression republicans made massive gains in congress and was always in reaction to large, rapid expansions of federal power where republicans ran essentially as the party of saying let's stop this. i don't think it is a poor into this. i think something about the american middle, particular about the working class, that does not want rapid, sudden expansion of federal power in this election fell into a long

60 + year pattern. >> let's go across the pond and ask you. >> what has struck me from the contributions of all the americans here where they are the political spectrum is the common level of disappointment in the obama residency. >> lynn? >> i think the message was jobs and there is some statistics in the science committee that saw a big republican gains early in the year before obama's popularity started dropping as low as it did. i think this was a message in this election that drives from the economy more than anything else. >> harold? >> i think it is a combination. many people -- many different

people voted in this election. if you did a random sample, you have different people getting different answers out as to why they voted. my sense is that there is an enormous disappointment, to put it mildly, in the results. you can characterize it that that they don't like the policy and many people are saying they expected more and they are really hurting. they are sending a message to all sides, tea party people, republicans, and the democrats, something has to be done to change our circumstances and if it is not, we don't know how we will vote in the future. >> i want to thank all of you and they're wonderful panel and we would hope at some point that we may do this again and thank you all and thank youdean and thank jeff anderson, you recover quickly and get back from the soccer field. thank you all so much. thank you. [applause]

h[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> tomorrow on washington journal, a look at how the newly-elected congress will work with president obama. we will hear from susan page. also, a discussion about voting patterns from the 2010 elections. then, stuart rothenberg on the

reelection campaign of president obama into his potential challengers will be in 2012. >> it is harmless that one is making a star adam britney spears or -- britney spierears, but americans get why is that the stars, dream teams in the best and brightest may not be what they are cracked up to be, but in that time chaos and mayhem can come to rain.

>> all rise. seated.se be

>> good morning, everyone. we're going to take up the first case that's on the calendar, and that is the united states of america vs. the state of arizona. we allotted 30 minutes per side. the appellant wishes to save time for rebuttal, that's fine, just keep an eye on the clock. it's counting down. with that, a reminder, we're ready to begin. does the state of arizona -- >> good morning. i'm john bouma. i represent the state of arizona and governor january brewer who is with us in court today.

i'd like to try to reserve five minutes for rebuttal. >> that's fine. >> your honor, arizona is trying to deal with the problems that arise from a federal immigration system that even president obama acknowledges is broken. arizona is a border state, and it's on the very front lines and there's serious crimes that are involved in the drug trafficking, the human trafficking, human smuggling, and the other activities, the coyotes who thrive because once an illegal alien is in the united states, the chances of removal are so low that basically crossing the border is same as crossing the finish line. with a federal government that's

been unable or unwilling to solve the problem, arizona passed the public policy whereby they wish the arizona law enforcement officers to assist in the imputation and enforcement of federal immigration law to the maximum extent permitted by federal law. the district judge apparently deciding that arizona law enforcement officers would forget their training or experience or the constitution and act in an unconstitutional manner has enter in an injunction that basically preserves the status quo, and that status quo is simply unacceptable. >> the district court focused on four provisions; correct? >> yes, sir. >> that's all that's at issue here. >> what's that?

>> we're just focusing on that. >> yes, sir. >> mr. bouma, forget the arguments you would address to the legislature. tell us how the judge was wrong own each four if you would, please. >> okay. with respect to -- i think we first start with the proposition that this is a facial challenge, and she mentioned the challenge, the standard for that challenge principally that is no set of circumstances exist under which the statute would be valid. put another way with respect to each of the sections challenged that is unconstitutional in every conceivable application. >> let me ask you this. you mentioned solerno. is that principle somewhat intentioned with the government's argument here that

these provisions are preempted completely? >> these provisions are not preempted completely. they -- in every instance comply with a congressional objectives and not a one of them that does not comply with obvious jexes and do not conflict and can comply with state and federal law in each particular instance, and none stand as an obvious -- obstacle to the full objectives of congress. there's no expressed preemption. it's just field preemption which is the field of immigration which basically decide who should and should not be admitted into the country and the circumstances under which a legal entrance should remain, and decanis tells us the rest of this is under the police power

and that every regulation of aliens is not a regulation of immigration, and so we're back to the proposition there's no expressed preemption. >> tailor that argument to section three. >> with respect to section three. >> the registration. >> yes, sir. arizona passed a set of standards or laws essentially the same as the federal law, 1304 and 1306 saying if you're in violation of that, you're in violation of state law. now, that is consistent with congressional objectives certainly. the fact that the administration doesn't choose to enforce them shouldn't mean that congress doesn't want them enforced, particularly when you look at what congress has done all the way in encouraging state and local officials to assist congress and if you look at

section 13, on that point in hinds the supreme court said that pennsylvania adding as a misdemeanor the failure to register under pennsylvania's act was treading in federal ground. we have under section 1304 and 1306 a well detailed and regulated policy of what documents immigrants or aliens should carry in this country under the federal statute. what arizona is saying is that's fine, but if you don't carry those, we're going to put you in jail for up to a year or fine you. isn't that so? >> your honor, i think the arizona statute has lesser penalties than the federal. it goes 30 or 60 days.

>> okay. even 30 or 60 days for a demeanor. >> congress has stiffer penalties than arizona does. all arizona does is comply with the rules. >> is it your argument that is state can take a look whether the federal government is enforcing its laws and if the federal government is not enforcing its laws, it can enforce the laws for the federal government? for instance, if i don't pay my income tax, can california come along and sue me for not paying my income tax? >> well, i don't think california would be interested in forcing the income tax, but california is certainly interested in seeing that the people within its border comply with the rules because arizona's bearing the brunt of the federal government's failure to enforce it. you mentioned hins. that's a conflict cay. it did not say there's no room

for the states to work in this particular area. as a matter of fact, there's a particular paragraph in heinz that says the concept whether this is in the realm of both is specifically reserved, so it's the heinz conflict case and the scheme was with the government scheme. this is not totally at odds with the government scheme. this is doing what congress says. the fact that the administration won't enforce what congress says doesn't mean arizona should have to bear the brunt of it. how do they come in and claim preemption by we're in the field, but not doing much about it? we choose not to enforce it. >> how about section 2? >> section 2 is a provocation of what people are already doing, and almost every jurisdiction they do it on a discretionary

basis. they investigate suspected illegal aliens. all the duty does is quantify what both the united states and the district essentially said is constitutionally permissible. >> let me ask you this question. it seems to me reasonable for them to ascertain the status of the person they're after, and ascertain it from a federal source, but there is al the provision that in the case of an arrest, the person will not be released until that status is determined. now, i don't know any provision in federal law that goes that far, and suspect that getting into -- isn't that getting into federal territory?

>> the provision that you're talking about which is the second sentence we think has to be construed to be inconsistent with the first, third, and fourth sentences of that paragraph at which point the only people who are investigated are those who there's a reasonable suspicion on alien -- >> no, that's fine, but no, my question -- i think i want to focus on shall not be released until it's determined. >> yes, and that's -- that can only be determined in the context of the 4th amendment. >> yes, i understand all that, but how can we construe it so the detention does not exceed what would be the federal law? >> the statute specifically contains the provision and basically i can tell you it says that it will be construed in

accordance with federal immigration law then to preserve the constitutional right of all persons and the privileges and immunities of the united states citizens. that's part of 2b. it means it incorporates the 4th amendment standards. >> all right. let's suppose a citizen arrest would reasonable belief that they've committed a felony, and then they post bail, and they are able to get out, but then the statute says, no, you don't get out until your immigration status is determined. how do you reconcile that? >> ordinarily if they go to jail, someone is going to determine the immigration state because it requires much -- >> no, no, i can see that, and

often that will be done, but this is an absolute statement, shall not be released until it is determined, and they're on bail, but then the statute kicks in, doesn't it and says they shouldn't be released? >> well, if you take the other provision, you have to go as far as the 4th amendment allows it and turn them loose. if you can't determine within a reasonable time what their immigration status is, that statute specifically provide that you have to turn them loose under the provision of being consistent with the constitutional rights of all persons. >> mr. bouma, suspect it true if the -- isn't it true if the immigration service picks up an illegal alien, and we're in the process of determines whether he was legal or not, the statute requires him to be presented to an officer within the shortest time possible to be admitted a

bail. >> yes. >> what would happen here? >> i think the idea is to follow the usual procedures. we have reasonable suspicion. the next thing you need is probably cause, and then the next thing you have to do is let them go if you can't identify them. >> on bail? >> on bail or otherwise. >> would you clarify for me, there's some debate between the parties just about how sentence one and two are to be interpreted. i'm just curious about how you envision the statute working for the officer in the field. >> well, in the first place, officers -- i'll just start with the proposition that officers certainly understand the concepts of reasonable suspicion, and probably cause and the stops and how long you can keep somebody, so then the

statute, the second sentence has to be construed only with respect to those about whom there's a reasonable suspicion, and that's consistent with the first sentence in the third and fourth sentences. secondly, you know, i think the court failed to apply three principles here with respect to the section. one is to interpret a statute in a constitutional manner. two, interpret it so it's sensible without an absurd result, and third is have it be consistent with the legislative intent. the legislative intent is to deal with illegal aliens. you know, arizona has a long tradition of hispanic population, nobody's trying to -- >> to follow-up on your response, the statute goes on to provide that if a person is detained and produces a document

like on arizona driver's license, that's a presumption they're here legally, but in the case the judge was pointing out, what happens if they produce a valid driver's license and the statute still has to verify they're here legally? >> no. >> that's it? if they have a driver's license, that's it? >> right. >> they don't have to comply with the other statute. it's all over? >> correct. the current status doesn't give you that -- >> that doesn't seem to be what the statute says though. >> sir? >> that doesn't seem to be what the statute says though. >> it does. if they have a driver's license it's presumption as being taken care of and they're gone. if you go back to the concepts that the statute is intending to deal with illegal aliens that there is illegal aliens we're talking about and if you try to interpret it the way that either

the government or district court did -- >> then answer this part of the question. >> okay. >> it doesn't say it is conclusively presumed to not be an alien by the presentation of an arizona driver's license. it says a person is presumed not to be an alien, a presumption that can be rebutted by a conversation between the officer and the alien which indicates reasonable suspicion that he has not an alien or an men citizen. you can see that. >> you're absolutely right. as a matter of fact, very often in practice the first thing the alien tells them is he's not a citizen, and that takes care of the reasonable suspicion usually. >> if we were to interpret the statute in the way that is constitutional --

[no audio] >> yes, it would. >> address two others that the district court -- >> yes, sir. i'll talk about five. >> whatever one you want to begin with. >> it's the issue of whether you can, whether you can make criminal penalties for being employed, to attach a penalty for -- people who are unauthorized to work, to penalize them as a way to discourage the men from working. that is clearly consistent with congressional intent, the reason they are unauthorized workers is congress made it clear that

they're not supposed to be working. congress has chosen to first try to deal with it from the employer's stand point, and in that particular instance did put in an expressed preemption provision, but it was a partial expressed preemption with respect to employers, and they didn't put it in with respect to employees nor is it clear if you look at the statute or anything congress has done is there any clear manifested intent to preefferent the area of employees. this is a problem because, you know, -- >> i'll tell you what the problem is, mr. bouma, is your argument is something that is foreclosured to us.

judge ferguson found and wrote that the congressional intention was not to punish employees. now, right or wrong, this three-judge panel must follow that rule. we are not an em bank panel. tell me why judge ferguson's opinion in national center does not bind this court. >> well, judge ferguson's opinion, and that is one to the legislative intent and to determine the legislative intent, he looked at the hearing that consistented of a five-person committee, three of whom were present, and from that, he designed the legislative intent, and that seems a long way from being clearer and manifested -- >> let us suppose i stipulated the fact that mr. --

that judge ferguson was absolutely wrong. i agree with you let's say. i don't, but -- [laughter] i say i agree with you. how does a three-judge panel of the 9th circuit overrule another 3-judge panel of the 9th circuit on what the legislative intent was? judge ferguson found the legislative intent on a bail order of an immigrant of an alien which said that he couldn't work during the period of time of bail to be inconsistent with the legislative intent which was not to punish workers while they were awaiting their asylum hearings or other proceedings on immigration, but to let them work and earn money to feed

themselves and other charges. that was his idea. now, judge ferguson, rest in peace, may have been wrong, but how can we turn that around and agree with you? >> i think you are in a position should you decide to decide that it was simply wrong. >> well, our -- we aren't allowed to do that. we're bound by the prior three-judge panel. if there's a change in the supreme court or by a statute -- the case poses some problem to you with respect to section 5. how about the final section before your time runs out. you might want to address section five. >> okay. with respect to section vi, that is a provision that is

consistent with a federal statute, 1252c. it permits an arizona law enforcement offers to write the law unless somebody is removable from the country, and the idea of that is to permit arizona law enforcement officers to work with them and hold suspects when ice tells them they want them held for people who have been removed, convicted of a crime or a public offense and who have been removed -- >> doesn't this statute pose the same problem with respect to arrest and detention? >> i don't believe it does, sir. >> why not? >> well, this is somebody once held and somebody who committed a federal offense and has been

removed or returned to the country. they are here illegally and there is subject to arrest and detention. >> excuse me. it's not restricted to the -- >> but that's an example. somebody who has not gone or somebody who has gone and returned. either one would apply. they are both clearly national crime information center check, and they find that he was convicted, sentenced, served his term for second degree murder, and is free. your arizona policeman can arrest him because he's removable. >> that's right. >> because of the ina? >> that's right. >> the judge made it appear very complicated about who is

removable and who is not. >> it may be clear in some cases like murder or bank robbery or sexual abuse of a minor which is cause for removal even if the sentence was served, this is a fasal challenge, isn't it? >> clearly the ice maintains a data base of people who have been removed and a data base of those convicted of those crimes. >> hasn't the federal government through very elaborate scheme established a lengthy process for determines whether somebody is removable or not? >> there's a -- >> there's a lengthy process. nothing you can call whether somebody committed a crime. there's some obvious ones that

judge alluded to, but some aren't. >> whether a particular afns -- offense is a serious felony. >> justice stephens made it clear there's a whole lot of areas that it's clear, but i guess the main point is this is a fasal challenge and that's the main point with respect to each of these. there are certainly circumstances in which it can be applied in a constitutional manner. it is not all -- it is not unconstitutional in every conceivable aspect. >> i'm still trying to understand how this statute works. that is an officer determines by running a data check that somebody is convicted of, i don't know, second degree murder or whatever crime you want to pin point, they arrest him without a warrant, they take him into custody, and what do they

hold him for? >> before they arrest him, they id him. they have to have a lawful stop or detention and then they have to have a reasonable suspicion. now they checked, found out who the individual is, and that's important because until they do that, neither ice nor they who they have. it's a theory of congress and clear communication with ice because you don't know who you got. you can't catch them unless you know about them. they reported that, and now they both know who they have. ice says we want to hold him. >> we don't know -- >> i'm sorry? >> we don't know this is a removable office. >> then if you're going to talk about people acting in a constitution flail manner and -- manner and get back to the fact you assume they will and

secondly this is only a facial challenge and there are constitutional applications, this can be applied in a constitutional manner and assume the police officer lets that go. >> how long does icef have to get back? 24 hours, 48 hours, a week? >> i think you're talking about reasonable suspicion or probably cause is 24 hours in both. the truth of it is look at the experience and statements submitted, they get an answer back within 11 minutes. >> okay. all right. i'm passed my -- >> do you want us to construe the statutes of you can only have the arizona asks for a ruling? >> i don't think it's the only time it might happen because as i said there's some relatively clear things. they could perhaps arrest him, but the concept is basically to provide the authority that is

required if you're going to have the statute, 1252c, that needs authority. there may be authority, we don't know. this is to clarify that. i'm past my time. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. >> good morning, and it please the court, edwin kneedler for the united states. before discussing the provisions at issue here, i want to layout the constitutional structure and preemption provisions that govern the provisions. the constitution of the united states, that's the subject matter of immigration in the national government -- >> no. national government, no, in congress. >> in congress. >> there's a difference between national government and

congress. >> well, congress in the enacment and the executive branch in the execution of the law under article ii and the interfeengs of the execution of the law -- >> as long as it's done fairly and well. >> yes. and this is because the subject matter of immigration which is the treatment of foreign nationals within our borders is a core aspect of foreign relations and one of the purposes for the adoption of the constitution was a concern that individual states would embroil the entire nation in disputes with other countries, and it's important not to allow for a patchwork of state laws, but rather for the nation to speak with one voice, and in this context it's particularly important to protect the right of the u.s. citizens abroad if their treatment. >> has there been any adverse foreign relations since the year 2007 when the state of new jersey adopted by order, not by

statute, a similar requirement to its police force that anyone who was stopped for an indictable crime or drunk driving should have his immigration status checked? >> well, i'm not aware of a level of dissatisfaction or concern that has arisen now. >> secondly, how about the same rule in rhode island? has that led to our foreign relations being deteriorated as a result of checking immigration status? >> there have been concerns expressed in recent years. >> in rhode island or new jersey or just arizona? >> the -- the deck collar ration explains this particular rule brought to the floor a broader concern, concern that is applicable to

law. >> does any other state in new jersey, pennsylvania, or nevada or any other state ever issue a declaration that the legislature declared that the intent of the about is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in arizona? >> no, and i think that's an important point. this is an extraordinary state statute that has additional criminal penalties added on top of those adopted by congress and a mandatory check with dhs any time there is a stop and reasonable suspicion. section i of the act describes these precisions are designed to work together to have enforcement and adopt the public policy of the state of arizona that is independent and outside the control of congress and or out of the control of the national government. >> that's part of the statute? >> pardon me? >> does it say they operate

outside of the control? don't put words into the statute. >> i'm -- i'm -- but -- >> it's statutory. >> it's a consequence of what happens. if i could explain -- >> no, i'm well aware of this. concentrate on the provisions that -- >> i would like to switch to section iii in particular which establishes a state crime for failure to register or carry a registration card as required by the federal criminal statutes, but it only applies to people who are unlawfully present in the united states, so in effect criminal law is an unlawful presence. those prosecutions are brought by the state, not to the control of the united states government. that's preempted for three reasons. it's a direct regulation of and part of the direct regulation of immigration.

it follows the states in position of criminal sanctions over and above and on top of those same state prohibitions are themselves are preempted. >> you don't have to spend a great deal of time on section iii. >> okay. i do want to make the point though the other provisions were designed to work together with section iii so if there was a stop -- >> arizona does nothing more than to complement the federal scheme. >> the scream court said that the registration was an issue there and this is built on top of that. those occupy the field and the court said a state may not add on regulations and punishments on top of that. we think it's exactly that. there's conflict preemption here

because it legalizes presence here in the united states because it only applies to people who are unlawfully present. as we explained in the brief it is contrary to the policy of the united states in statutes and consistent with international practice not to criminalize mere presence in the united states, and so for all of those reasons, we think that that section iii is preempletted because it is direct regulation of immigration. if i -- if i might unless the courthouse has further questions on section iii, i could switch to section v of the statute -- >> that's fine. >> the employment of provision. with respect to section v as the court pointed out, this court's decision ?t national immigrant rights case did analyze the backdrop in the enactment of the

federal prohibition of the employer sanctioned provision and recognize that congress considered and deliberately rejemghted the possibility of imposing sanctions -- >> i think you heard the judge, it's commonground. we a bound by that decision in the argument. >> yes. >> do you need more? >> if i could just add one point on that on section v. >> do you have to do it? [laughter] >> i feel ruly. >> i'd like to underscore one point why the court is correct in its evaluation, and it's just not a registration history point which the court addressed in the ncir case, and that point is that the 13 and 24a of the

federal act has specific prohibition requiring an individual employer to attest he has lawfully present and authorized to work and there's criminal sanctions in the federal act for violating that provision. significantly, there's another provision in 1324a that says the station that the individual employee makes may not be used for any purpose except to enforce the federal statute, and to us that, that clearly shows that congress contemplated that the employee's involvement and the connection with applying for employment could only lead to federal consequences and that there would be no state consequences. that's the point that was not made in the ncir. it's a textual point. >> if there's a declare ration, the state in which that perjury is commitmented, the state

cannot prosecute him? >> i believe that is probably correct. to putting that to one side, it can't make the employment itself unlawful. whrrnt -- >> why do you believe a state could not prosecute a perjury committed on a federal document? >> well -- well, if it's -- if it's regulating perjury against the united states in the same way that section iii is preempted, so would that be. it's not up to a state to prosecute false statements to the federal government. >> do you have any authority for that? >> the supreme's court decision in the buckman case a case involve the with the fda and the supreme court said the relationship in the context of fraud within the federal agency and those whom it regulates is a matter to be addressed by the federal government, and the state could not create a civil cause of action for fraud, and again, there's no need for the court to decide that here, but

-- >> i'm not talking about a civil cause of action. i'm talking about a criminal penalty for perjury. >> well, but again, if the question is whether the state would have authority over the subject matter whether it's criminal or civil means, we don't think would -- >> is there a case you have in mind where the state is found not to have ability to prosecute somebody who perjury themselves to the federal government in >> i'm not aware of a specific case, but again, that relationship would ordinarily be governed by federal law, so i addressed the two criminal provisions that the state grafted on top of the federal scheme, and now i'd like to turn to section 2 be of the act. >> as you talk about section 2b, i'm interested in how the house fits into the scheme.

>> we believe this is preempted on its face, and we believe, and let me explain why. i think it's consistent with the solerno stipulation. >> you stipulate this is a facial challenge. >> yes, it is. we believe this provision is unconstitutional in every application. what we object to and preempted in this context is the mandatory nature of the requirement. we do not question the authority of the state in a state law enforcement officer for example in the course of an ordinary stop or either traffic stop or stopping someone on the sidewalk to question someone about his identity, about his status and check with ins or excuse me, dhs because indeed federal officials rely often upon information and glean from state and local law enforcement.

what is problematic about this is the mandatory nature of it because what the state has done is to harness the federal enforcement apparatus in aid of the separately constituted state mandatory criminal enforcement approach to the immigration laws. >> let me ask you if that's the theme of your brief, but why -- isn't congress capable of saying no? if this is a burden -- >> congress, congress, congress could, but we think congress had already said no. >> well -- >> let me -- >> is there anything in the statute? >> that's interesting. >> well, yes, there is. we think where it is manifested most clearly is in the provision of the act in section 287g or 1357g of title a, and